The farm bill messaging blitz

THE FARM BILL MESSAGING BLITZ: While House GOP leaders work to secure the support necessary to bring the farm bill, H.R. 2, to the floor later this week, opponents of the legislation have stepped up their messaging game.

Story Continued Below

On Monday, our inboxes, Twitter feeds and Google alerts were filled with criticism of the bill — from anti-hunger advocates, who think it’s bad for low-income families; from conservatives who think it doesn’t go far enough on SNAP but goes too far on farm subsidies; and from environmentalists, who are livid about provisions they see as weakening conservation programs and Endangered Species Act protections in pesticide approval.

Out front on the farm bill: The House Agriculture Committee has been actively promoting the bill on Twitter, and so too has Farm Bureau President Zippy Duvall, Farm Credit, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives and Plains Cotton Growers, among others. In recent days there has been a flurry of op-eds backing the bill, such as here and here.

Conservative criticism: The roster of critics, however, continues to make noise. Americans for Prosperity wrote to lawmakers on Monday urging them to “rein in excessive spending and corporate welfare” by supporting a list of amendments, some of which are considered poison pills.

The Heritage Foundation issued a report late last week criticizing the nutrition title (again), saying it estimates that 20 percent of work-capable adults who are not working would be subjected to the stricter work requirements. The group believes that percentage should be much higher. And the Secretaries’ Innovation Group on Monday said state leaders want the bill to take a harder line on geographic exemptions and other policies.

Calls to maintain the energy title: The Agriculture Energy Coalition sent a letter to the House of Representatives, opposing the House farm bill’s elimination of a stand-alone energy title and its exclusion of mandatory funding for energy programs.

The sugar boost: The lobby promoting reform of the sugar program, which includes sugar users and conservative groups alike, scored a number of favorable media hits recently, including a Washington Post editorial over the weekend that called the program “grotesque.” (It also called the farm bill a “legislative monstrosity.”) Rep. Virginia Foxx, the sponsor of an amendment that would revamp the sugar program, teamed up with conservative bigwig Grover Norquist to pen an op-ed in National Review.

Ag sector on amendment defense: Meanwhile on Monday, National Crop Insurance Services — which represents companies like ADM and Farmers Mutual that sell crop insurance policies — promoted a pair of op-eds written by farmers in Kentucky and Ohio and published in local newspapers. They defended the controversial policy known as Harvest Price Option, which pays out indemnities based on projected crop prices or prices at harvest time, depending on which is higher. They argued that it allows farmers to forward market their crops and is the equivalent of “replacement value” coverage on a car.

The effort is designed to counter an amendment offered by Republican Reps. John Duncan (Tenn.) and Ralph Norman (S.C.) that would eliminate taxpayer subsidies for HPO. Critics of the program argue it removes too much risk from farming, and therefore incentivizes consolidation in agriculture and planting on environmentally sensitive land.

Also on Monday, Farm Policy Facts — a nonprofit funded by groups like the American Sugar Alliance, National Cotton Council and National Association of Wheat Growers — blasted out a list of all the letters sent to House lawmakers in the last week urging them to oppose amendments that would target crop insurance with caps on premium subsidies and means testing, overhaul U.S. sugar policy and limit commodity payments. More than 300 groups signed on to one letter, arguing that such proposals would harm producers who are entering the fifth year of an agricultural recession brought about by low commodity prices.

But trade overshadows all: There’s plenty of grumbling on Capitol Hill that producers are actually much more worried about the volatile trade landscape right now. Sure, they want to see the farm bill get done, but some have bigger fish to fry right now. AgWeek dove into this dynamic here.

A U.S.-CHINA DEAL ON ZTE COULD BE A WIN FOR U.S. FARMERS: The Trump administration is angling to strike a deal with China that would see Beijing drop tariffs on billions of dollars of U.S. agricultural products in exchange for the U.S. backing down on penalties imposed against Chinese telecom firm ZTE. President Donald Trump signaled on Sunday that he would help ZTE “get back into business, fast” less than a month after the Commerce Department announced a harsh penalty on the company for lying about violating U.S. sanctions.

Art of the deal: The U.S. could backpedal on its decision to bar U.S. companies from doing business with ZTE and exporting materials to the firm for up to seven years. In return, China would agree to drop tariffs it imposed on U.S. agricultural products as retaliation for U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, The Wall Street Journal reported. Last month, China — the No. 2 purchaser of U.S. farm goods — raised tariffs on $3 billion worth of American products, including pork, nuts, fresh and dried fruits, and wine.

However, some hardliners in the administration are strongly opposed to a potential deal, arguing that China can’t be trusted to follow through and worrying privately that the president is being swindled by more moderate aides who opposed his aggressive approach to Beijing.

What’s next? Chinese and U.S. officials will meet in Washington today through Saturday to continue high-level trade talks. The Trump administration is working to protect the agricultural industry — and the sector has already been “featured quite prominently” in trade discussions with Beijing, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said during a Senate hearing last week.

Who’s calling the shots? Ross has been largely sidelined in trade talks with China, in the latest signal that Trump is losing confidence in his Commerce secretary, POLITICO’s Doug Palmer and Andrew Restuccia report.

That has left Trump to place increasing reliance on Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and White House trade adviser Peter Navarro — who have varying opinions on how the administration should counter Beijing’s trade practices.

** A message from the American Sugar Alliance: As lawmakers consider the future of America’s no-cost sugar policy, sugar farmers across the country want them to hear one thing: “Don’t cut my family out of the Farm Bill.” Learn more: https://facesofsugarpolicy.org**

ADVOCATES CALL FOR REGENERATIVE AG: Advocacy group Food & Water Watch is calling for a ban on “factory farming” on the heels of the $50-million-plus verdict that a federal jury in North Carolina handed down against Smithfield Foods for the way it handled animal waste at one of its affiliated industrial-scale hog farms. The group released a report on Monday stating that “the rise of factory farms in our nation has transformed rural and economically diverse communities into agribusiness-controlled nightmares.”

The group believes that companies should be responsible for pollution created by the animals they own — an argument that was furthered by the outcome of the Smithfield case, though the judge later reduced the verdict according to a state law that caps punitive damages.

Proposed changes: Federal and state governments should forbid the building and expansion of industrial farms and in exchange support diversified, smaller-size livestock using regenerative agriculture practices.

Smithfield portrayed the North Carolina case as an attack against production agriculture. The case is the first of several brought against Smithfield by North Carolina residents who live near farms that raise hogs for the company. The winning verdict could spur similar lawsuits in other states, legal experts said, and give momentum to advocates who argue that large-scale farming poses a threat to the environment and to rural communities.

USDA KEEN ON BROADBAND PILOT, BUT NO WORD ON TIMING: USDA officials are “very excited” to roll out a $600 million pilot program for rural broadband deployment that was authorized in the omnibus spending deal for fiscal 2018, Anne Hazlett, assistant secretary for rural development, said Monday at an event kicking off the White House’s latest infrastructure week. Hazlett did not say when the pilot would launch, but she indicated USDA is looking at ways it can be “innovative in deploying this technology,” such as establishing more partnerships with rural economic cooperatives, she said.

“We see a number of significant gaps in rural infrastructure,” Hazlett said. “These are not just an amenity, these are necessities to quality of life and economic opportunity to these places.” Expanding access to high-speed internet in rural communities is “a key priority” for USDA in this administration, she said.

The pilot program would provide loans and grants to service providers in underserved and tribal areas to leverage an estimated $1 billion in total new broadband projects. Secretary Perdue said in April that USDA is working as quickly as possible to develop rules for the pilot. Hazlett did not provide details on that process.

ROW CROPS:

— WHO presses to scrap trans fats from world food supply: The World Health Organization on Monday unveiled a plan to push trans fats out of global food production. The effort calls on governments to take a number of steps to bring about that goal, including regulatory action and enforcement. Helena Bottemiller Evich has more.

— Problems with applications for FCC subsidies: More than 80 percent of 277 applications that were filed to receive FCC subsidies for rural broadband buildout were incomplete, the FCC said on Monday. Companies have three weeks to revise them if they want a chance to take part in a reverse auction, where bidders will compete against each other to offer voice and broadband service for the fewest subsidy dollars. Pro Technology’s Margaret Harding McGill has more here.

— What Pruitt did on Day 1: EPA’s inspector general revealed on Monday that Administrator Scott Pruitt sought round-the-clock security from his first day in office, casting doubt on whether Pruitt received enhanced protection because of serious security threats. More from Pro Energy here. Pruitt will likely face questions about his spending on security when he appears before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Wednesday.

— ICE worksite investigations nearly double: The investigative arm of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement opened 3,510 worksite probes through the first seven months of fiscal 2018, according to new data released on Monday. The figure is nearly double the number of investigations launched in all of fiscal 2017, Pro Employment and Immigration’s Ted Hesson reports.

—House bill shaves $100M from EPA budget: The House Appropriations Committee’s fiscal 2019 spending bill, released on Monday, would cut $100 million from the EPA’s budget, but it once again rejects even steeper reductions sought by the Trump administration, Pro Energy’s Alex Guillén reports.

—Coalition of environmental groups press lawmakers to oppose House farm bill: More than 25 agricultural and environmental groups urged lawmakers on Monday to oppose the House farm bill because of its “inclusion of myriad anti-environmental provisions and attacks on conservation.” In a letter to a number of House lawmakers, groups like the Environmental Working Group and Union of Concerned Scientists said the bill is “plagued with ideological and special-interest giveaways and provisions that harm public health and the environment.”

— USDA questioned over animal welfare in labs: USDA says it adheres to stringent animal welfare standards in its 41 agricultural research labs, but government inspectors documented 16 animal welfare violations at 10 USDA facilities in 2017, the Washington Post reports. In one lab, 32 quail chicks died after temperatures in the room reached higher than 130 degrees, and in another, healthy kittens were routinely euthanized rather than given up for adoption.

— New faces on food safety advisory committee: Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue has appointed 18 new members and 12 returning members to the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods.

— Sunrise Foods sues USDA over corn: Sunrise Foods International, a Canadian corporation, has filed suit against USDA, alleging that the department improperly and inconsistently enforces grain import laws. The suit comes after Sunrise was blocked from off-loading a shipment of organic cracked corn in Stockton, Calif., in March. Sunrise claims the cracked corn, used primarily as poultry and dairy feed, should have been allowed into the country since it was “produced or processed in Turkey” and not in Kazakhstan, Moldova and Russia, which are not approved for shipping corn to the U.S. More from AgWeek here.

** A message from the American Sugar Alliance: Critics of American agriculture want to cut sugar out of the Farm Bill, eliminating 142,000 U.S. jobs and leaving farmers to fend for themselves in the world’s most subsidized and volatile commodity market. It makes no sense because U.S. sugar policy historically costs taxpayers nothing. That’s why sugarbeet and sugarcane farmers are telling lawmakers one thing: “Don’t cut my family out of the Farm Bill.” Learn more: https://facesofsugarpolicy.org**

About The Author

Sabrina Rodriguez is a fellow at POLITICO, covering trade and agriculture. She started off at Politico in 2015 as a member of POLITICO Journalism Institute and returned the following year as an intern for POLITICO Pro.

Sabrina, a Northwestern University grad, previously interned at Chalkbeat New York, Miami New Times and The Miami Herald. A Miami native, she most recently covered the first months of the Trump administration at Diario Perfil in Buenos Aires, Argentina.